IC-NRLF 


5 


E 

312 
.7 
I652c. 


m 
u> 
f* 


GD 
01 
N 
O 


<£> 

oo 

00 

o 
in 

o 


LEJLJLE.R 


TO 


LORD     MAHON, 


BEING   AN   ANSWER 


TO 


HIS    LETTER    ADDRESSED    TO    THE    EDITOR 


OF 


WASHINGTON'S  WRITINGS. 


LETTER 


TO 


LORD     MAHON, 


BEING   AN   ANSWER 


TO 


HIS    LETTER    ADDRESSED    TO    THE    EDITOR 


OF 


WASHINGTON'S  WRITINGS. 


BY  JARED   SPARKS. 


BOSTON: 

LITTLE,  BROWN,  AND  COMPANY. 
1852. 


CAMBRIDGE: 

METCALF      AND      COMPANY, 
PRINTKRS    TO    THE    UNIVERSITY. 


k 

,7 


LETTER 


TO 


LORD     M  A  H  O  N 


MY  LORD, 

I  HAVE  had  the  honor  to  receive  from  you  a 
copy  of  the  Letter,  which  you  have  addressed  to 
me  as  a  Rejoinder  to  my  Reply  to  certain  stric 
tures  on  the  manner  in  which  I  had  edited  Wash 
ington's  Writings.  In  that  Reply,  it  was  my 
main  object  to  explain  the  plan  and  principles 
upon  which  it  was  originally  designed  that  the 
work  should  be  executed,  and  which,  as  I  thought, 
you  and  others  had  strangely  overlooked  or  mis 
apprehended  ;  and  also  to  show,  that  I  had  dis 
charged  the  duties  of  an  editor  in  strict  conform 
ity  with  that  plan  and  those  principles.  While 
thus  reviewing  my  past  labors  and  vindicating  my 
integrity  of  purpose,  I  had  occasion  to  speak  with 
pointed  disapprobation  of  two  or  three  serious 


M5G5276 


charges  in  a  recent  volume  of  your  History,  which 
I  knew  to  be  founded  in  error,  and  which  I  was 
wholly  unable  to  reconcile  with  the  courtesy  and 
candor  to  be  expected  in  a  work  from  your  pen. 

It  is  true,  my  Lord,  as  you  suggest,  I  had  not 
then  read  that  volume,  and,  if  I  had  done  so,  it 
could  not  in  any  degree  have  modified  my  opinion 
of  the  passages  which  I  had  seen,  and  to  which 
my  remarks  were  confined.  I  did  not  pretend  to 
"  answer  your  book,"  nor  any  part  of  it  except 
the  brief  extracts  here  alluded  to,  which  are  in 
no  way  affected  by  the  general  contents  of  the 
work.  If  I  had  perused  the  volume,  most  assur 
edly  I  should  not  have  said,  "a  British  historian 
might,  perhaps,  find  something  to  commend  in  the 
result  of  my  attempts";  referring  to  the  efforts  I 
had  made,  in  the  notes  and  illustrations,  to  cor 
rect  the  erroneous  opinions  and  false  impressions, 
which  had  prevailed  in  America  concerning  the 
motives  and  designs  of  the  British  Ministry  and 
military  commanders  during  the  war.  On  this 
point,  your  recognition  of  the  fact  is  explicit  and 
full. 

You  also  say,  "  Mr.  Sparks's  own  share  in 
these  notes  and  illustrations  is  written,  not  only 
with  much  ability,  but  in  a  spirit,  on  most  points, 
of  candor  and  fairness,  and  the  whole  collection 
is  of  great  historical  interest  and  importance."  I 


trust  that  I  am  not  insensible  to  your  own  candor 

and  fairness  in  forming    this    estimate,  nor   to  the 

liberality  of  the  terms  in  which  your  judgment  is 
expressed. 

But  the  questions  at  issue  between  us  are  of 
a  different  character,  and  require  to  be  discussed 
by  themselves.  You  expressed  the  opinion,  that 
I  "  had  printed  no  part  of  Washington's  corre 
spondence  precisely  as  he  wrote  it,"  which  opinion 
you  conceived  yourself  "  bound  not  to  conceal." 
You  also  charged  me  with  making  additions  to 
the  original  text,  and  unwarrantable  alterations 
and  omissions  for  the  sake  of  embellishment  ; 
leaving  your  readers  to  draw  the  conclusion,  which, 
if  they  rested  on  your  declarations  alone,  they 
could  not  but  draw,  that  the  editor  was  totally 
incompetent  to  the  task  he  had  undertaken. 

You  now  withdraw  the  charge  of  making  ad 
ditions,  unquestionably  the  most  important,  but 
you  say,  "  On  other  points  I  must  declare  myself 
prepared,  though  with  all  possible  respect  for  your 
observations,  to  adhere  to  and  maintain  the  opin 
ions  I  advanced."  The  withdrawal  of  the  first 
charge  might  close  that  part  of  the  discussion  at 
once,  if  you  did  not  still  insist  on  your  right  to 
make  it  at  the  time,  relying  on  authority  which 
you  then  supposed  to  be  entitled  to  confidence. 


Let   us    briefly  consider   this    claim  before  we  pro 
ceed  farther. 

The  case  stands  thus.  You  found  in  one  of 
Washington's  letters,  as  printed  by  me,  the  pas 
sage  which  here  follows  in  italics;  "but  is  it  pos 
sible  that  any  sensible  nation  upon  earth  can  be 
imposed  upon  by  such  a  cobweb  scheme  or  gauze 
covering?"  This  passage  did  not  appear  in  a  copy 
of  the  same  letter  as  printed  by  Mr.  Eeed. 
Whereupon  you  charged  me,  in  a  strain  of  sar 
casm,  (certainly  unusual  in  your  Lordship's  com 
positions,  and  therefore  the  more  to  be  regarded,) 
with  having  "  manufactured "  it  for  the  occasion, 
and  by  way  of  embellishment  to  the  original  text. 
Having  ascertained  that  Washington  actually  wrote 
these  words,  absurd  as  they  seemed  to  you,  and 
that  they  had  been  omitted  in  the  other  printed 
copy  by  some  accident,  you  now  withdraw  the 
charge.  And  you  add,  "  I  will  even  go  farther, 
and  express  my  regret  that,  believing  as  I  did  the 
charge  to  be  well  founded  and  fully  proved,  I 
adopted  a  tone  towards  you,  in  one  or  two  other 
passages  of  my  History,  different  from  that  which 
I  should  have  used  had  I  thought  you  wholly 
free  from  this  imputation."  I  am  very  ready  to 
accept  this  as  a  fair  recantation,  though  not  so 
fully  as  I  could  have  done,  if  its  value  were  not 
diminished  by  the  remarks  with  which  it  is  con 
nected. 


You  maintain,  that,  under  the  circumstances, 
you  were  justified  in  making  the  charge,  and  in 
throwing  out  insinuations  not  less  erroneous,  and 
scarcely  less  offensive.  You  ask,  "Having  found 
these  passages,  I  will  put  it  to  any  candid  per 
son,  and  will  include  you,  Sir,  in  the  number, 
whether  I  was  to  blame  for  the  conclusion  I  drew 
from  them]  Had  I  not  a  right  to  say,  that  the 
*  cobweb  schemes  or  gauze  coverings '  seemed  to 
be  of  your  own  manufacture  1  Had  I  not  a  right 
to  intimate  a  suspicion,  in  one  or  two  other  parts 
of  my  History,  whether  such  improvements  had  not 
extended  farther ;  whether  the  same  manufactory 
had  not  been  busy  elsewhere  ] "  As  you  put  these 
questions  to  me  personally,  I  must  answer,  that  I 
can  neither  allow,  nor  conceive  for  a  moment,  that 
you  had  any  such  right. 

What  was  the  real  ground  upon  which  you 
stood  I  From  fifteen  words  of  suspected  addition, 
and  the  supposed  change  of  one  other  word,  which 
you  have  since  acknowledged  is  at  least  doubtful, 
you  ventured  to  hazard  the  opinion,  and  to  pro 
mulgate  it  in  an  authoritative  manner,  that  I  had 
made  like  additions  and  changes,  or,  in  your  own 
phrase,  "  manufactured "  them,  throughout  Wash 
ington's  correspondence ;  an  editorial  license,  which 
you  properly  designate  as  "not  at  all  short  of  a 
literary  forgery."  Let  me  ask  you,  in  all  plain- 


8 


ness,  whether  you  had  a  right,  upon  any  princi 
ples  of  fair  criticism,  to  draw  so  broad  an  infer 
ence,  implicating  not  more  the  literary  ability 
and  judgment  of  the  editor  than  his  integrity  as 
a  man,  from  such  exceedingly  narrow  premises  1 

Every  one  knows  how  frequently  errors  result 
from  accident,  or  through  the  mistakes  of  tran 
scribers  and  printers,  in  publishing  original  man 
uscripts.  A  moderate  degree  of  forbearance  might 
have  inclined  you  to  suspect  an  error  from  some 
of  these  sources,  and  cautioned  you  to  wait  till 
your  proofs  were  better  established.  The  event 
has  shown  that  this  course  would  have  been 
more  judicious,  certainly  more  just.  I  must  dis 
sent,  therefore,  from  your  claim  of  right  to  charge 
me  with  manufacturing  "  cobweb  schemes  or  gauze 


coverings." 


We  may  examine  this  claim  a  little  farther,  as 
applied  to  "  one  or  two  other  places "  in  your 
History,  to  which  you  allude.  In  one  of  these, 
after  remarking  in  the  text,  that  the  Declaration 
of  Independence  "  excited  much  less  notice  than 
might  have  been  expected,"  you  deem  it  proper 
to  add  in  a  note,  "Washington,  however,  in 
his  public  letter  to  Congress,  (unless  Mr.  Jared 
Sparks  has  improved  this  passage,)  says,  that  the 
troops  had  testified  '  their  warmest  approbation.' " 
In  another  place,  referring  to  certain  passages  in 


9 


Washington's  letters,  you  administer  the  caution 
to  your  readers,  "  How  far  Mr.  Sparks  may  have 
either  garbled  these  passages,  or  suppressed  others, 
I  know  not."  And  why  should  you  not  know  1 
You  had  before  you  a  copy  of  Washington's  "  Of 
ficial  Letters  to  the  Honorable  American  Congress," 
published  in  London  more  than  half  a  century 
ago,  in  two  volumes.  This  work  you  have  more 
than  once  quoted.  It  contains  the  passages  you 
cite  in  both  these  cases  from  letters  to  the  Presi 
dent  of  Congress,  (Vol.  I.  p.  185,  Vol.  II.  p.  223,) 
printed  in  precisely  the  same  words  as  in  "  Wash 
ington's  Writings."  And  yet,  with  these  previous 
ly  printed  letters  in  your  hands,  you  seem  not  to 
have  consulted  them,  but  you  were  willing,  with 
out  inquiry,  to  hazard  these  injurious  imputations. 
Was  this  justifiable  under  any  circumstances  1 

As  you  have  retracted  the  main  charge,  how 
ever,  I  am  so  far  content;  and  I  should  have  let 
it  rest  without  comment,  if  you  had  not  attempt 
ed  to  vindicate  your  right  to  make  it  on  such 
grounds  as  appear  to  me  untenable. 

The  two  other  charges,  first,  of  corrections,  and, 
secondly,  of  omissions,  with  an  unwarrantable  de 
sign,  although  you  allow  them  to  be  "  far  lesser 
charges,"  you  undertake  to  sustain. 

Here  it  is  to  be  remarked,  that  your  observa- 
2 


10 


tions  and  strictures  are  presented  under  a  double 
aspect.  You  state  cases,  and  assign  motives ;  the 
former  you  endeavor  to  explain  by  the  latter. 
You  imagine  that  you  have  discovered  two  prom 
inent  motives,  which,  if  your  discovery  is  genuine, 
must  have  operated  to  pervert  my  judgment,  and 
blunt  my  moral  perceptions,  through  the  whole 
course  of  my  editorial  labors.  These  motives  are, 
first,  a  desire  to  save  the  dignity  of  Washington, 
which  led  me  sometimes  to  omit  epithets  and 
phrases,  and  sometimes  to  substitute  others  more 
appropriate  to  his  character  than  those  written  by 
himself;  and,  secondly,  a  tenderness  for  the  peo 
ple  of  New  England,  moving  me  to  leave  out  such 
parts  of  Washington's  letters  as  bore  hard  upon 
their  patriotism,  courage,  or  public  virtue.  As 
these  imputed  motives  form  the  groundwork  of 
your  specifications,  I  propose  to  analyze  your 
proofs,  which,  from  the  manner  in  which  you 
have  stated  and  arranged  them,  must  be  done 
somewhat  in  detail. 

As  a  demonstration  of  the  first  motive,  you  be 
gin  by  reproducing  the  phrases  "  flea-bite,"  "  lame 
hand,"  "  two  of  this  kidney,"  and,  last  of  all, 
"  Old  Put."  These  phrases  have  become  so  well 
known,  by  the  labors  of  yourself  and  others,  that 
the  false  elevation,  to  which  Washington's  fame 
had  risen  by  their  omission,  may  now  be  consid- 


11 


ered  as  fairly  brought  to  its  true  level.  While 
I  admit  the  offence  in  all  its  magnitude,  and  de 
plore  its  consequences,  I  must  repel  the  charge  of 
sinister  design,  or  of  any  felonious  intent  upon 
the  truth  of  history.  If  I  could  have  anticipated 
the  lively  concern  which  the  loss  of  these  words 
was  to  excite,  not  only  in  the  minds  of  respec 
table  writers  in  the  daily  journals,  but  in  that  of 
an  eminent  historian,  I  cannot  doubt  that  I  should 
have  weighed  the  matter  more  deliberately,  and 
perhaps  have  come  to  a  different  decision. 

In  the  case  of  "Old  Put,"  however,  it  should 
be  remembered  that  this  form  of  speech  was  not 
a  conception  of  Washington  ;  he  placed  it  within 
inverted  commas,  as  copied  from  Mr.  Reed's  let 
ter,  to  which  he  was  writing  an  answer ;  so  that 
no  characteristic  trait  of  the  writer  was  sacrificed 
by  changing  "Old  Put"  into  "General  Putnam." 
I  mention  this  as  a  fact  proper  to  be  noticed, 
but  not  as  an  apology  for  making  the  change. 
Had  the  phrase  been  retained,  a  note  would  nat 
urally  have  referred  it  to  Mr.  Reed's  letter  as  its 
source. 

Now,  my  Lord,  let  these  editorial  delinquencies, 
if  such  you  please  to  call  them,  be  explained  as 
they  may,  or  go  unexplained,  I  cannot  resist  the 
conviction,  that,  when  you  build  on  them  the  fol 
lowing  formal  judgment,  you  are  striving  to  mag- 


nify  a  small  thing  into  one  of  most  unnatural 
dimensions.  You  inquire,  "What  other  motive 
can  by  possibility  be  assigned  for  such  corrections 
besides  the  one  that  I  have  stated'?  Is  it  not 
quite  clear  in  these  cases,  that  you  were  seeking 
to  use  language  more  conformable  to  Washing 
ton's  dignity  of  character  than  Washington  could 
use  for  himself "?  We  in  England,  with  the  high 
est  respect  for  the  memory  of  that  great  man, 
believe  that  in  his  own  true  form  he  is  sufficient 
ly  exalted.  It  is  only  some  of  his  countrymen 
who  desire  to  set  him  upon  stilts."  Is  it  your  set 
tled  belief,  that  these  four  phrases  were  absolutely 
necessary  to  bring  Washington's  dignity  down  to 
its  just  position  in  forming  an  estimate  of  his 
character]  If  you  have  perused  the  eleven  vol 
umes  of  his  correspondence,  and  particularly  his 
familiar  letters  and  diaries  in  the  twelfth  volume, 
you  have  seen  hundreds  better  suited  to  answer 
such  a  purpose.  What  an  absurdity  in  me, 
then,  to  undertake  to  shield  Washington's  dignity 
by  suppressing  half  a  dozen,  or  half  a  hundred 
words  or  phrases,  while  multitudes  of  others 
equally  or  more  objectionable  on  this  score  spring 
up  throughout  the  work. 

As  to  the  "stilts,"  it  becomes  those  of  my  coun 
trymen,  who  may  be  obnoxious  to  your  charge,  to 
look  to  the  matter.  If  there  be  any,  who  under- 


13 


take  the  hopeless  task  of  raising  Washington 
higher  than  he  stands  by  the  force  of  his  own 
character,  and  the  consent  of  mankind,  it  is  but 
chanty  to  remind  them  of  their  folly.  As  an 
apology  for  their  delusion,  however,  it  should  not 
be  forgotten,  that  the  foible  of  exalting  great  men 
by  exaggerated  praise,  or,  in  your  more  expressive 
language,  by  "  setting  them  upon'  stilts,"  is  not 
peculiar  to  any  country.  Even  in  England  the 
pens  of  respectable  authors  are  sometimes  betrayed 
into  extravagances  of  this  sort.  English  histori 
ans  are  not  always  free  from  them. 

We  come  now  to  another  class  of  omissions, 
for  which  you  assign  the  same  motive ;  passages 
containing  "  the  vehement  language  which  Wash 
ing  at  this  period  applies  in  familiar  corre 
spondence  to  the  English."  I  will  take  your 
examples  in  the  order  in  which  you  arrange 
them. 

You  complain  that  a  passage  is  omitted,  in 
which  Lord  Dunmore  is  called  an  "  arch-traitor  to 
the  rights  of  humanity."  If  you  had  examined  a 
little  more  closely,  you  would  have  seen  that 
about  one  third  of  the  whole  letter  was  omitted, 
not  because  it  contained  these  words,  but  as  being 
in  substance  a  repetition  of  what  was  written 
nearly  at  the  same  time  to  Richard  Henry  Lee 
on  the  same  subject,  which  is  printed  in  full. 


u 


Washington,  in  his  letter  to  Lee,  says  of  Lord 
Dunmore,  "  Motives  of  resentment  actuate  his 
conduct,  to  a  degree  equal  to  the  total  destruction 
of  the  colony."  (Writings,  Vol.  III.  p.  216.) 
Would  "  arch-traitor "  have  added  to  the  force  of 
this  description,  and  was  it  worth  while  to  repeat 
a  paragraph  for  the  sake  of  inserting  it  I 

Again,  you  take  it  amiss  that  the  world  should 
be  deprived  of  Washington's  opinion  of  "  the 
English  people,"  when  he  speaks  of  them  as  mak 
ing  "  instruments  of  tyranny "  of  the  Scotch,  and 
as  a  "  nation  which  seems  lost  to  every  sense  of 
virtue,  and  to  those  feelings  which  distinguish  a 
civilized  people  from  the  most  barbarous  savages." 
And  you  add,  "  You  deemed,  no  doubt,  that  such 
phrases  were  not  perfectly  consistent  with  Wash 
ington's  serene  and  lofty  character.  Yet  I,  as  a 
Briton,  can  read  them  without  resentment,  and 
should  certainly  have  retained  them."  And  un 
questionably  so  should  I,  if  the  same  sentiments 
were  not  advanced  on  several  other  occasions  in 
language  not  less  direct  and  strong. 

I  will  cite  two  instances.  Turn  to  a  letter  to 
General  Gage,  written  in  answer  to  a  discourteous 
one  from  that  officer,  in  which  Washington  says, 
"  Whether  our  virtuous  citizens,  whom  the  hand 
of  tyranny  has  forced  into  arms  to  defend  their 
wives,  their  children,  and  their  property,  or  the 


15 

mercenary  instruments  of  lawless  domination,  av 
arice,  and  revenge,  best  deserve  the  appellation  of 
rebels,  and  the  punishment  of  that  cord,  which 
your  affected  clemency  has  forborne  to  inflict,"  &c. 
(Vol.  III.  p.  65.)  Again,  in  a  letter  to  Mr.  Reed, 
speaking  of  the  measures  adopted  in  England  after 
the  battle  of  Bunker's  Hill ;  « I  would  tell  them, 
[the  Ministers,]  that  we  had  long  and  ardently 
sought  for  reconciliation  upon  honorable  terms, 
that  it  had  been  denied  us,  that  all  our  attempts 
after  peace  had  proved  abortive,  and  had  been 
grossly  misrepresented,  that  we  had  done  every 
thing  which  could  be  expected  from  the  best  of 
subjects,  that  the  spirit  of  freedom  rises  too  high 
in  us  to  submit  to  slavery,  and  that,  if  nothing  else 
would  satisfy  a  tyrant  and  his  diabolical  ministry, 
we  are  determined  to  shake  off  all  connection  with 
a  state  so  unjust  and  unnatural."  (p.  286.) 

Are  these  expressions  more  "consistent  with 
Washington's  serene  and  lofty  character,"  than 
those  which  you  have  quoted  as  missing]  Do 
they  differ  from  them  in  meaning  or  spirit?  Are 
they  not  enough  for  a  trial  of  your  equanimity  and 
good-nature  as  a  Briton  ?  If  not,  others  of  a  simi 
lar  purport  may  be  found  in  various  parts  of  the 
work.  And  yet  you  accuse  me  of  having  "  omitted 
all  the  vehement  language,  which  Washington  at 
this  period  applies  to  the  English." 


16 


You  go  on,  under  the  same  head,  to  cite  anoth 
er  passage.  In  a  letter  to  Mr.  Reed,  speaking  of 
the  evacuation  of  Boston,  Washington  describes 
the  miserable  condition  of  the  Loyalists,  who  left 
their  homes  and  went  on  ship-board  with  the 
British  troops.  "  One  or  two  of  them,"  he  writes, 
"  have  committed,  what  it  would  have  been  happy 
for  mankind  if  more  of  them  had  done  long  ago, 
the  act  of  suicide."  A  long  paragraph  including 
these  lines  was  left  out,  although  your  mode  of 
citing  them  leaves  the  impression  that  these  alone 
were  selected  for  omission. 

Your  comment  follows.  "For  this  harshness  I 
can  offer  no  excuse.  I  am  not  astonished  at  your 
desire  to  conceal  it."  Will  you  be  astonished  to 
learn,  that  it  was  not  concealed  at  all!  If  you 
had  turned  back  only  four  pages,  and  looked  into 
the  letter  preceding  the  one  from  which  the  above 
sentence  is  omitted,  you  would  have  found  these 
words ;  "  One  or  two  have  done,  what  a  great 
number  ought  to  have  done  long  ago,  committed 
suicide.  By  all  accounts,  there  never  was  a  more 
miserable  set  of  beings  than  these  wretched  crea 
tures  now  are."  (Vol.  III.  p.  343.)  On  a  mo 
ment's  comparison  you  will  observe,  that  the 
paragraph  containing  the  passage,  which  you  quote 
from  a  letter  to  Mr.  Heed,  is  almost  a  literal 
copy  of  one  which  was  written  the  day  before 


17 


to  another  person,  and  which  is  printed  in  its 
place.  Hence  the  omission.  Would  you  com 
mend  it  as  a  skilful  piece  of  editorship  in  a 
work  professedly  consisting  of  selections  from  a 
vast  correspondence,  to  print  parts  of  two  suc 
cessive  letters,  embodying  the  same  thoughts  in 
nearly  the  same  language,  because  they  happened 
to  be  addressed  to  different  individuals'?  I  be 
lieve  not. 

I  have  thus  reviewed  all  the  examples  adduced 
by  you  as  proofs  of  the  first  motive,  that  of  ex 
alting,  or  protecting,  Washington's  dignity.  I  will 
make  no  further  comment  than  simply  to  add, 
that  I  neither  admit  such  a  motive,  nor  recog 
nize  in  your  course  of  argument  any  thing,  which, 
rightly  considered,  can  give  countenance  to  your 
conjecture. 

We  will  now  proceed  to  the  second  motive, 
the  alleged  desire  to  conceal  or  disguise  Washing 
ton's  opinions  of  the  New  England  people,  and  of 
the  character  of  certain  individuals  among  them. 

In  opening  this  subject,  your  words  are ;  "  My 
main  complaint  against  you,  and  your  principal 
allegations  in  defence,  turn,  however,  on  the  omis 
sions  which  you  have  made  as  to  points  in  which 
neither  Washington's  character,  nor  yet  his  style, 
are  in  any  degree  involved."  This  being  your 
3 


18 

"main  complaint,"  it  calls  for  a  particular  con 
sideration.  The  grounds  of  it  are  thus  stated  in 
your  own  words. 

"Where  Washington  speaks  of  certain  shippers 
from  New  England  as  'our  rascally  privateers- 
men,'  you  leave  out  the  epithet.  —  Where  he  speaks 
of  certain  soldiers  from  Connecticut  as  showing 
c  a  dirty  mercenary  spirit,'  you  leave  out  the  for 
mer  epithet.  —  Where  he  complains  of  the  inad 
equate  supply  of  money  to  his  camp  from  the 
Provincial  Assemblies,  you  suppress  his  concluding 
exclamation ;  '  Strange  conduct  this  ! '  —  One  New 
England  officer  is  not,  it  seems,  to  be  mentioned 
by  Washington  with  a  touch  of  irony  as  '  the  noble 
Colonel  Enos,'  and  that  epithet,  likewise,  is  to 
be  expunged.  —  Of  another  New  England  officer, 
Colonel  Hancock,  you  will  not  allow  Washington 
to  express  his  suspicion  with  respect  to  a  letter 
of  his  own,  that  'Colonel  Hancock  read  what  I 
never  wrote.'  —  Of  a  third  New  England  officer 
you  will  not  allow  Washington  to  observe,  'I 
have  no  opinion  at  all  of  Wooster's  enterprising 
genius.'  —  Of  a  fourth,  General  Frye,  you  will 
not  allow  us  to  hear  that  'at  present  he  keeps 
his  room,  and  talks  learnedly  of  emetics  and 
cathartics.  For  my  own  part  I  see  nothing  but 
a  declining  life  that  matters  him.'  —  Nor  are  we 
to  have  the  amusing  description  of  a  fifth  New 


19 

England  officer,  General  Ward,  who  first  resigned 
on  account  of  his  ill  health,  and  then  retracted 
his  resignation,  '  on  account,  as  he  says,  of  its 
being  disagreeable  to  some  of  the  officers.  Who 
those  officers  are,  I  have  not  heard.  They  have 
been  able,  no  doubt,  to  convince  him  of  his 
mistake,  and  that  his  health  will  allow  him  to 
be  alert  and  active.'  —  You  will  not  suffer  Wash 
ington  to  say  of  Massachusetts,  as  compared  with 
other  States,  '  there  is  no  nation  under  the  sun 
that  I  ever  came  across  pays  greater  adoration 
to  money  than  they  do.'  —  You  will  not  suffer 
him  to  say,  when  New  England  had  failed  to 
supply  him  with  the  gunpowder  he  needed,  '  we 
have  every  thing  but  the  thing  ready  for  an  of 
fensive  operation.'  Here  you  think  fit  to  omit 
the  three  most  important  words,  '  but  the  thing,' 
by  which  Washington,  in  a  becoming  soldier-phrase, 
meant  powder,  and  by  this  omission  you  have  en 
tirely  altered  the  representation  of  his  circumstances 
which  he  intended  to  convey." 

After  this  summary,  you  ask  the  following 
questions.  "  Can  any  dispassionate  reader  be  in 
doubt  as  to  the  course  you  have  pursued?  Can 
he  be  in  doubt  as  to  the  motive  which,  uncon 
sciously,  perhaps,  has  been  working  in  your  mind] 
Is  it  not  quite  clear,  that  in  these  omissions  you 
have  been  desirous  to  strike  out,  as  far  as  possi- 


20 

ble,  every  word  or  phrase  that  could  possibly 
touch  the  local  fame  of  the  gentlemen  at  Boston, 
or  wound  in  any  manner  the  feelings  of  New 
England  1" 

This  array  of  specifications  shall  now  be  exam 
ined,  with  particular  reference  to  the  motive  which 
you  assign  for  them. 

You  are  concerned,  in  the  first  place,  that  the 
privateers-men  should  not  hold  their  appropriate 
place  in  the  history  of  the  time,  after  being  de 
prived  of  an  epithet.  Surely  your  anxiety  would 
have  been  at  an  end,  if  you  had  cast  your  eye 
over  a  letter  from  Washington  to  Congress,  writ 
ten  two  weeks  afterwards,  in  which  he  says,  "  The 
plague,  trouble,  and  vexation  I  have  had  with  the 
crews  of  all  the  armed  vessels,  are  inexpressible. 
I  do  believe  there  is  not  on  earth  a  more  disor 
derly  set.  Every  time  they  come  into  port,  we  hear 
of  nothing  but  mutinous  complaints."  (Vol.  III. 
p.  187.)  Is  not  this  as  graphic  a  sketch  as  you 
could  desire  1  Would  calling  them  "  rascally  " 
throw  any  darker  shade  over  the  picture1?  Where, 
then,  is  the  attempt  to  conceal  the  misdeeds  of 
the  New  England  privateers-men1? 

Of  the  next  epithet,  little  needs  be  said.  The 
difference  between  a  "  dirty  mercenary  spirit,"  and 
a  "  mercenary  spirit,"  historically  or  morally  con 
sidered,  may  be  decided  by  the  acuteness  of  those 


21 


who  delight  in  nice  distinctions.  The  less  dis 
cerning  might  venture  to  say  that  the  epithet  is 
redundant.  In  some  sense,  at  least,  every  thing 
mercenary  is  "  dirty."  I  am  willing  to  consign 
it  to  the  fair  interpretation  of  the  critics,  without 
the  remotest  wish  to  gloss  over  the  shameful  con 
duct  of  the  Connecticut  troops. 

I  cannot  but  be  impressed,  however,  with  the 
degree  of  consequence  you  attach  to  this  word, 
even  with  its  expletory  modification.  You  have 
brought  it  twice  into  your  History,  and  on  one 
occasion  with  a  note  in  the  margin,  informing 
your  readers  that  it  is  among  the  "  epithets  care 
fully  excluded  from  Mr.  Sparks's  compilation."  I 
am  bound  to  confess  that  I  can  see  no  harm  in 
the  epithet,  and  I  shall  not  defend  the  omission. 
Whether  it  was  omitted  by  accident  or  intention 
ally  is  more  than  my  recollection  will  now  enable 
me  to  declare.  I  would  only  be  strenuous  in 
contending,  that  the  guilty  Connecticut  troops  have 
gained  nothing  by  its  absence. 

The  "  strange  conduct "  you  mention,  as  an 
improper  omission  dictated  by  local  predilections, 
has  drawn  you  into  an  error  scarcely  less  strange. 
You  say  Washington  "  complains  of  the  inade 
quate  supply  of  money  from  the  Provincial  As 
semblies,"  and  then  infer  that  the  exclamation 
was  omitted  because  these  Assemblies  belonged  to 


22 


New  England.  If  you  had  attended  to  the  whole 
sentence,  you  would  have  discovered  that  Wash 
ington  was  not  speaking  of  the  Assemblies,  but 
complaining  of  the  Continental  Congress  for  not 
signing  their  paper  currency  with  more  prompt 
ness,  while  he  was  so  much  embarrassed  for  the 
want  of  money  in  the  army.  Your  charge  of  a 
motive  should  therefore  be  withdrawn  in  this  in 
stance,  however  you  may  account  for  the  disap 
pearance  of  the  exclamation. 

That  there  may  be  no  suspicion  of  a  fraud 
upon  history  here,  I  will  direct  your  attention  to 
a  letter  touching  the  same  subject  written  to  a 
member  of  Congress  a  few  days  before  the  date 
of  your  quotation,  and  printed  in  its  place.  In 
that  letter  Washington  says,  "  For  God's  sake 
hurry  the  signers  of  money,  that  our  wants  may 
be  supplied.  It  is  a  very  singular  case,  that  their 
signing  cannot  keep  pace  with  our  demands."  (Vol. 
III.  p.  173.)  Whether  this  "very  singular  case" 
amounts  to  more  or  less  than  "  strange  conduct," 
may  be  submitted  to  the  calm  judgment  of  any 
one,  who  has  leisure  to  analyze  the  merits  of  the 
question. 

In  regard  to  "the  noble  Colonel  Enos,"  I  can 
see  no  good  reason  why  the  ironical  epithet  should 
have  crept  out.  I  should  hesitate  to  deny  that  it 
was  by  my  consent,  yet  I  must  affirm,  that,  hap- 


23 


pen  as  it  might,  it  was  by  no  deep  design  to 
shelter  a  New  England  officer  from  his  just  de 
serts,  since  I  have  stated  the  particulars  of  his 
case  in  a  long  note  to  one  of  Washington's  let 
ters.  (Vol.  III.  p.  164.)  He  left  Arnold  on  his 
perilous  march  through  the  wilderness  to  Quebec, 
and  brought  back  his  men.  He  was  tried  by  a 
court-martial,  and  acquitted  on  the  proof  of  a 
want  of  provisions.  But  public  opinion  was  less 
indulgent,  and  hinted  a  suspicion  of  his  firmness, 
if  not  of  his  valor.  All  this  is  fully  explained 
to  the  reader,  and  the  loss  of  the  epithet,  how 
ever  much  to  be  lamented,  has  certainly  not  con 
tributed  to  screen  the  Colonel's  character. 

You  have  unaccountably  mistaken  the  purport 
and  drift  of  the  next  extract.  You  call  Hancock 
"  another  New  England  officer."  It  is  true,  he 
had  been  a  colonel  of  militia  before  the  war,  a 
station  from  which  he  was  somewhat  unceremo 
niously  dismissed  by  General  Gage.  It  will  aston 
ish  most  readers  to  be  told,  that  he  was  at  this 
time  an  officer  in  the  New  England  army,  since 
he  had  been  for  more  than  seven  months  Presi 
dent  of  the  Continental  Congress  in  Philadelphia. 

Your  abridgment  of  the  passage  also  leads  to 
an  erroneous  conclusion.  Mr.  Eeed  was  in  Phil 
adelphia,  and,  in  an  answer  to  one  of  his  letters, 
Washington  wrote,  "  I  do  not  very  well  under- 


stand  a  paragraph  in  your  letter,  which  seems  to 
be  taken  from  one  of  mine  to  Colonel  Hancock, 
expressive  of  the  unwillingness  of  the  Connecticut 
troops  to  be  deemed  Continental.  If  you  did  not 
misconceive  what  Colonel  Hancock  read,  he  read 
what  I  never  wrote,  as  there  is  no  expression  in 
any  of  my  letters,  that  I  can  either  recollect  or 
find,  that  has  a  tendency  that  way."  From  this 
passage  you  infer  that  Washington  intended  to 
"  express  his  suspicion,"  that  President  Hancock 
did  actually  pretend  to  read  what  he  had  never 
written,  thereby  inventing  and  promulgating  a  false 
hood. 

This  would  indeed  be  a  formidable  charge,  but 
nothing  is  more  clear,  taking  the  whole  passage  in 
connection,  than  that  Washington  meant  to  express 
an  opinion,  in  strong  language,  that  Mr.  Reed  had 
misconceived  what  had  been  read.  Whatever  rea 
son  may  be  assigned  for  the  omission,  therefore,  it 
could  not  have  been  a  desire  to  protect  the  Pres 
ident  of  Congress  from  so  injurious  a  suspicion, 
which  certainly  did  not  exist  in  the  mind  of 
Washington. 

Next  comes  the  unfortunate  General  Wooster ; 
unfortunate  in  having  been  an  old  man,  with 
a  patriot's  heart,  when  he  would  gladly  have  re 
called  the  energy  and  youthful  vigor,  which  he  had 
bravely  expended  in  former  wars ;  but  not  un- 


fortunate  in  having  fallen  in  battle,  a  few  months 
after  the  date  to  which  you  refer,  while  fighting 
for  his  country's  freedom.  Washington  had  "no 
opinion  of  his  enterprising  genius,"  alluding  to 
the  chief  command  which  he  then  held  in  Can 
ada.  Surely  he  had  not,  as  qualifying  him  for 
such  a  post.  He  expressed  the  same  sentiments  in 
other  letters,  which  are  printed  in  the  work. 

For  instance ;  "  General  Wooster,  I  am  informed, 
is  not  of  such  activity  as  to  press  through  difficul 
ties,  with  which  that  service  is  environed."  (Vol. 
III.  p.  119.)  And  again,  after  Wooster  had  gen 
erously  consented  to  serve  under  General  Mont 
gomery  during  the  campaign,  Washington  writes 
to  General  Schuyler ;  "  My  fears  are  at  an  end, 
as  he  acts  in  a  subordinate  capacity."  (p.  143.) 
In  what  respect  does  the  sense  of  these  expressions 
differ  from  that  of  the  sentence  you  cite,  and  where 
in  does  the  omission  contribute  to  disguise  Wash 
ington's  opinion  "  of  a  third  New  England  officer  "  1 
Besides,  more  than  half  the  letter  containing  this 
sentence  is  omitted,  as  in  other  cases,  to  avoid  repe 
tition;  and  it  is  obvious  upon  the  slightest  inspec 
tion,  that  the  reason  for  the  omission  was  in  no 
degree  connected  with  what  is  said  of  General 
Wooster,  or  of  any  other  individual. 

Your  reference  to  General  Frye  may  be  allowed 
to  stand  on  its  own  merits.  But  your  readers  would 
4 


26 


have  been  convinced  that  the  charge  of  having 
sought  in  this  instance  to  protect  the  reputation  of 
a  New  England  officer  was  groundless,  if  you  had 
extended  the  quotation  to  the  words  printed  in  near 
connection  with  it.  Washington  there  says,  "  I 
have  heard  of  no  other  valiant  son  of  New  England 
waiting  promotion,  since  the  advancement  of  Erye, 
who  has  not,  and  I  doubt  will  not,  do  much  service 
to  the  cause."  (Vol.  III.  p.  310.)  Would  the  point 
of  these  caustic  expressions  be  made  sharper  by 
the  omitted  sentence] 

As  the  name  of  this  gentleman  has  been  thus 
dragged  into  notice,  it  is  but  justice  to  say  a  word 
more  in  relation  to  him.  He  had  been  a  good  offi 
cer  in  two  wars,  was  at  the  capture  of  Louisburg  in 
1745,  always  commanded  the  respect  of  his  country 
men,  and  was  raised  to  the  rank  of  Major-General 
of  the  Massachusetts  forces  five  days  before  the  bat 
tle  of  Bunker's  Hill.  He  accepted  his  Continental 
commission  with  apparent  reluctance,  and  held  it 
but  three  months.  That  he  "  kept  his  room,  and 
talked  learnedly  of  emetics  and  cathartics,"  is  highly 
probable  ;  that  the  maladies  of  age  were  upon  him 
is  certain ;  but  that  history  required  these  personal 
traits,  common  to  infirm  old  men,  and  totally  uncon 
nected  with  his  public  character,  to  be  commemo 
rated  in  a  formal  manner,  is  at  least  questionable. 
As  it  is  a  matter  of  opinion,  however,  you  may  be 


27 


disposed  to  look  upon  it  in  a  different  light,  to 
which  I  shall  not  object,  saving  the  motive  by 
which  you  have  imagined  me  to  be  influenced. 

Similar  remarks  may  be  made  in  regard  to  Gen 
eral  Ward.  I  would  again  observe,  that  you  fre 
quently  quote  a  single  sentence,  as  if  it  constituted 
the  whole  of  an  omission,  and  then  infer  a  motive 
or  conjecture  a  reason  as  appertaining  to  that  sen 
tence  only,  whereas  the  fragment  quoted  by  you  is 
forced  out  of  its  place  as  an  integral  part  of  a  par 
agraph,  or  several  paragraphs  taken  collectively, 
which  have  been  omitted  for  general  reasons  very 
remote  from  the  one  you  assign.  You  must  per 
ceive  that  this  is  not  a  fair  way  of  presenting  the 
case,  because  the  reader  is  deceived  by  it  into  a  be 
lief,  that  the  passage  was  excluded  with  some  special 
aim,  when  in  reality  it  was  not  in  the  mind  of  the 
editor,  except  in  connection  with  the  whole.  Your 
extract  respecting  General  Ward  is  of  this  descrip 
tion.  It  occurs  in  the  body  of  a  long  paragraph, 
which,  with  several  others  in  the  same  letter,  was 
omitted  as  containing  unimportant  matter,  or  a  rep 
etition  of  what  is  printed  in  other  places.  It  is  the 
letter  in  which  the  suicidal  Loyalists  are  mentioned. 
I  cannot  charge  myself,  therefore,  with  having  had 
any  design  in  excluding  this  sentence,  although, 
upon  a  revision,  I  think  the  part  of  the  letter  em 
bracing  it  was  properly  omitted. 


I  shall  forbear  to  examine  the  grounds  of  the 
"  amusing  description  of  a  fifth  New  England  offi 
cer,"  or  to  inquire  into  the  causes  of  his  resignation, 
the  state  of  his  health,  or  the  arguments  used  to  re 
tain  him  in  the  service.  We  should  not  lose  sight 
of  justice,  however,  in  attempting  to  conjecture  his 
motives.  General  Ward  had  served  with  credit  in 
the  preceding  war ;  and  that  he  stood  very  high  in 
public  confidence  is  proved  by  the  fact,  that,  after 
the  affair  at  Lexington,  he  became  Commander-in- 
chief  of  the  New  England  troops,  and,  when  the 
army  was  adopted  by  Congress  as  a  Continental 
army,  he  was  appointed  second  in  command  to 
Washington.  No  one  has  ventured  to  insinuate, 
that  he  did  not  perform  the  duties  of  these  high 
stations  with  honor,  fidelity,  and  a  steady  devotion 
to  the  cause  of  his  country. 

What  local  or  personal  incidents  had  taken  place 
while  Washington  and  these  two  officers  were  to 
gether  in  the  camp  at  Cambridge,  which  induced  the 
former,  in  his  private  and  confidential  correspond 
ence  afterwards,  to  indulge  a  sarcastic  humor  in 
speaking  of  them,  it  would  be  in  vain  now  to  in 
quire.  But  you  charge  me  with  a  design  to  conceal 
the  facts  themselves  from  the  public  eye.  You  are 
doubtless  acquainted  with  a  work,  entitled  "  Me 
moirs  of  Charles  Lee,"  published  sixty  years  ago  in 
London,  and  several  times  reprinted  in  the  United 


29 


States.  In  that  volume  you  will  find  a  private  letter 
from  Washington,  expressing  the  same  ideas  con 
cerning  these  officers,  in  the  same  tone,  and  almost 
the  same  language,  as  in  the  letters  from  which 
you  quote  (Lond.  edition,  p.  254).  How,  then, 
could  I  have  been  so  far  blinded  as  to  hope  to  sup 
press  facts,  which  had  been  before  the  world  more 
than  half  a  century,  embodied  in  a  popular  work, 
widely  circulated,  and  accessible  to  every  reader  ? 

In  what  is  said  of  "  adoration  to  money,"  you 
again  mistake  in  applying  the  censure  to  Massa 
chusetts.  Washington  is  speaking  generally  of  the 
men  of  New  England,  and  complaining  of  their 
tardiness  in  coming  forward  to  enlist  into  the  ser 
vice.  For  this  tardiness  he  gives  a  good  reason  in 
the  same  sentence,  which  you  have  overlooked. 
"  The  Congress  expect,  I  believe,  that  I  should  do 
more  than  others;  for,  whilst  they  compel  me  to 
enlist  without  a  bounty,  they  give  forty  dollars  to 
others,  which  will,  I  expect,  put  an  end  to  our 
enlistments."  This  exorbitant  love  of  money,  then, 
charged  upon  them  in  the  vexation  of  the  moment, 
was  manifested  by  their  backwardness  to  serve  for 
smaller  pay,  than  they  understood  to  be  allowed 
for  the  same  service  in  other  parts  of  the  country. 

But  if  you  are  really  concerned  lest  history 
should  suffer  by  any  forbearance  of  mine  towards 
the  New  England  people  in  this  omission,  I  beg 


30 


you  will  turn  to  a  letter  in  "Washington's  Writ 
ings,"  in  which  he  says,  "  Such  a  dearth  of  public 
spirit,  and  such  want  of  virtue,  such  stock-jobbing, 
and  fertility  in  all  the  low  arts  to  obtain  advan 
tages  of  one  kind  or  another  in  this  great  change 
of  military  arrangement,  I  never  saw  before,  and 
pray  God's  mercy  that  I  may  never  be  witness  to 
again."  (Vol.  III.  p.  178.)  You  are  not  ignorant 
of  this  passage,  since  you  have  inserted  it  in  your 
History,  with  the  same  error  of  applying  it  to 
Massachusetts. 

We  have  at  length  arrived  at  the  last  specifica 
tion  in  your  list.  Washington  wrote,  "  We  have 
every  thing  but  the  thing  ready  for  an  offensive 
operation."  How  the  three  little  words,  "but  the 
thing,"  escaped  from  their  place,  I  cannot  explain. 
I  presume  it  was  by  an  accident.  I  can  see  no 
possible  objection  to  them.  The  collocation  of 
the  words  is  such,  that  they  might  easily  be  over 
looked  by  a  transcriber  or  printer.  The  impor 
tance  you  attach  to  them,  however,  as  conveying 
a  "representation  of  Washington's  circumstances," 
is  much  overrated.  If  there  is  one  thing  more 
than  another  insisted  upon  in  his  letters  during 
this  period,  it  is  his  want  of  powder.  Expressions 
like  the  following  are  of  perpetual  recurrence. 
"  No  quantity,  however  small,  is  beneath  notice " 
(Vol.  III.  p.  47) ;  "  not  sufficient  to  give  twenty- 


31 


five  musket  cartridges  to  a  man "  (p.  70) ;  "  our 
want  of  powder  is  inconceivable "  (p.  215).  It  is 
evident,  therefore,  that  the  three  words  are  not  of 
the  least  importance  as  indicating  the  condition  of 
the  army  in  regard  to  powder. 

Moreover,  you  mistake  in  supposing  Washing 
ton  to  complain  of  New  England  for  having 
"failed  to  supply  him  with  the  gunpowder  he 
needed."  His  complaint  is  not  directed  against 
New  England  alone.  It  was  the  business  of  Con 
gress  to  furnish  the  Continental  army  with  pow 
der.  There  was  little  powder  in  the  country,  and 
of  course  little  could  be  had.  The  manufacture 
of  the  article  was  not  yet  established.  The  New 
England  Colonies,  as  well  as  the  others,  supplied 
all  they  could  obtain.  Ships  were  sent  for  it  to 
Erance  and  the  West  Indies,  but  it  took  time  for 
ships  to  sail  across  the  ocean  and  return. 

In  another  place  you  censure  the  omission  of 
"  a  curious  story  told  by  Washington  relative  to 
his  want  of  powder."  And  wrhat  mystery  does 
this  curious  story  reveal]  Nothing  more  nor  less 
than  a  blunder  of  a  Committee  of  Supplies  in 
making  a  return  of  the  quantity  of  powder  on 
hand.  "  I  was  particular  in  my  inquiries,"  says 
Washington,  "  and  found  that  the  Committee  of 
Supplies,  not  being  sufficiently  acquainted  with 
the  nature  of  a  return,  or  misapprehending  my 


32 


request,  had  sent  in  an  account  of  all  the  ammu 
nition  which  had  been  collected  by  the  Province, 
so  that  the  report  included  not  only  what  was 
on  hand,  but  what  had  been  spent."  The  blunder 
was  of  course  accidental,  and  was  necessarily  de 
tected  at  once,  so  that  no  possible  consequence 
could  follow  from  it. 

You  deem  this  story  so  important,  that  you 
have  inserted  it  in  the  text  of  your  History,  and 
carefully  reminded  your  readers  in  a  note,  that  it 
"  is  omitted  in  Mr.  Sparks's  edition."  And  you 
can  discover  no  other  motive  for  the  omission, 
than  an  anxiety  to  conceal  from  the  world  the 
ignorance  or  misapprehension  of  a  Massachusetts 
committee,  although  the  whole  passage  is  con 
tained  in  the  "  Official  Letters  to  Congress,"  (Vol. 
I.  p.  21,)  long  before  published,  and  in  your  hands. 
Nor  do  you  intimate  that  the  story  stands  in  the 
midst  of  more  than  two  pages,  which  were  omit 
ted  obviously  because  they  treat  of  local  and  tem 
porary  details  of  little  moment. 

All  the  cases  in  your  list  have  now  been  ex 
amined  ;  but  there  are  others  adduced  by  you, 
which,  in  your  opinion,  show  "  a  desire  to  deal 
as  tenderly  as  possible  with  any  thing  or  any  body 
that  has  the  honor  to  be  connected  with  New 
England."  These  will  receive  due  consideration. 


Washington  had  spoken  of  the  "scandalous 
conduct  of  a  great  number  of  the  Connecticut 
troops."  The  word  "scandalous"  has  disappeared. 
How  it  happened  I  know  not,  and  assuredly  I 
am  not  disposed  to  defend  the  omission;  nor  is 
it  one  which  I  should  intentionally  have  made.  I 
observe  that  it  is  also  wanting  in  the  "Official 
Letters."  (Vol.  I.  p.  56.)  In  both  cases  it  may  per 
haps  be  fairly  ascribed  to  accident.  Yet  I  cannot 
agree  that  the  Connecticut  troops  would  have  any 
reason  to  rejoice  in  its  absence.  Considering  the 
manner  in  which  the  conduct  of  some  of  them  is 
described  on  different  occasions,  in  other  letters 
printed  in  the  work,  no  one  can  doubt  that  it 
was  scandalous,  even  without  the  aid  of  this  ap 
propriate  epithet. 

Again,  you  remark,  "Nor  are  we  to  be  told  of 
the  Boston  troops,  that  they  were  once  extremely 
uneasy,  and  almost  mutinous,  for  the  want  of  pay  "  ; 
and  you  ask  the  question,  "  Is  it,  or  is  it  not,  impor 
tant  to  show  how  far  Washington,  at  that  period, 
could  rely  upon  all  his  soldiers  I "  To  which  I 
reply,  first,  the  sentence  quoted  by  you  makes  part 
of  a  paragraph,  the  whole  of  which  was  omitted, 
with  several  others  in  the  same  letter,  as  contain 
ing  unimportant  details.  Washington  writes,  "  Hav 
ing  heard  that  the  troops  at  Boston  are  extremely 
uneasy  and  almost  mutinous  for  the  want  of  pay, 
5 


34 


(several  months'  being  now  due,)  I  must  take  the 
liberty  to  repeat  the  question  contained  in  my  letter 
of  the  5th  ultimo";  and  then  he  asks,  "Whether 
the  money  is  to  be  sent  from  hence  by  the  Pay 
master-General,  or  some  person  subordinate  to  him 
to  be  appointed  for  that  purpose  1 "  It  is  obvious 
that  he  speaks  of  the  uneasiness  and  "  almost " 
mutinous  spirit  of  the  troops,  not  as  an  alarming 
circumstance,  but  with  a  view  of  hastening  forward 
the  money  for  their  payment.  I  may  also  remark, 
that  the  omission  could  not  have  been  out  of  any 
delicacy  towards  the  New  England  troops,  as  is 
obvious  from  what  is  printed  in  another  place,  as 
follows ;  "  The  greater  part  of  the  troops  are  in  a 
state  not  far  from  mutiny,  upon  the  deduction  from 
their  stated  allowance,"  (Vol.  III.  p.  104,)  and  from 
the  fact,  that  the  paragraph  containing  the  omitted 
sentence  is  to  be  found  in  the  "  Official  Letters." 
(Vol.  I.  p.  153.) 

Secondly,  as  Washington  was  at  that  time  in 
New  York  with  the  main  army,  it  could  have 
had  very  little  influence  upon  his  movements,  or 
the  military  affairs  of  the  country,  if  the  detach 
ment  left  in  Boston  had  all  mutinied  and  gone 
home.  It  was  the  military  chest  upon  which  he 
had  first  and  mainly  to  rely;  when  that  was  full, 
his  reliance  on  the  soldiers  was  sufficiently  safe ; 
and  in  this  respect  I  suppose  these  troops  resem- 


35 


bled  those  of  all  countries.  It  is  not  probable  that 
any  commander  could  long  rely  on  troops  under 
voluntary  enlistment,  who  were  not  paid. 

You  next  bring  up  the  case  of  two  unworthy 
captains,  Parker  and  Gardiner,  who  had  been 
broken  by  a  court-martial,  the  one  for  frauds  upon 
his  men,  and  the  other  for  running  away  from  his 
guard  on  an  alarm.  The  paragraph  conveying  this 
intelligence  to  the  President  of  Congress  was  omit 
ted,  and  you  regard  the  omission  as  indicative  of 
New  England  partiality,  and  censurable  because  it 
was  "important  to  show  how  far  "Washington  at 
that  period  could  rely  upon  all  his  officers."  Do 
you  really  look  upon  the  ill  conduct  of  two  mili 
tia  officers  as  so  momentous  an  affair'?  Or  would 
you  infer  from  it,  that  the  other  officers  were  to 
be  suspected  of  cowardice  and  fraud,  and  that  it 
indicated  the  general  state  of  the  army? 

Again,  you  lay  great  stress  on  an  omission  of  a 
similar  kind  in  relation  to  Captain  Callender,  not 
in  a  "  confidential  letter,"  as  you  call  it,  for  all 
Washington's  official  letters  to  the  President  of 
Congress  were  intended  for  that  body,  were  read 
in  open  session,  and  usually  referred  to  a  commit 
tee.  Washington  wrote  from  the  camp  at  Cam 
bridge  ;  "  Upon  my  arrival,  and  since,  some  com 
plaints  have  been  preferred  against  officers  for  cow 
ardice  in  the  late  action  on  Bunker's  Hill.  Though 


there  were  several  strong  circumstances,  and  a  very 
general  opinion  against  them,  none  have  been  con 
demned  except  a  Captain  Callender  of  the  artillery, 
who  was  immediately  cashiered.  I  have  been  sor 
ry  to  find  it  an  uncontradicted  fact,  that  the  prin 
cipal  failure  of  duty  that  day  was  in  the  officers, 
though  many  of  them  distinguished  themselves  by 
their  gallant  behavior."  This  paragraph,  in  imme 
diate  connection  with  others  narrating  local  inci 
dents,  was  probably  omitted  because  it  contained 
no  fact  or  circumstance,  which  was  not  perfectly 
well  known,  and  which  had  not  been  repeatedly 
canvassed  and  discussed  by  American  writers. 

You  ask,  "  Is  not  this  a  passage,  which  every 
future  historian  of  Bunker's  Hill  has  a  right  to 
be  apprised  of,  and  ought  to  bear  in  mind  I " 
True,  and  he  must  be  an  historian  of  marvellous 
ly  little  reading  on  this  subject,  who  has  not  been 
apprised  of  all  it  contains  from  various  sources. 
The  facts  of  Captain  Callender's  unhappy  case,  and 
indeed  of  nearly  every  other  occurrence  in  that 
battle,  are  as  familiar  to  the  readers  of  American 
history,  as  that  Prescott  commanded  in  the  re 
doubt,  and  Warren  fell  on  the  field. 

Moreover,  all  the  particulars  relating  to  the 
points  in  question  were  published  more  than  thir 
ty  years  before  "  Washington's  Writings  "  came 
from  the  press.  Have  you  ever  read  Hubley's 


37 

"  History  of  the  American  Revolution  "  I  Probably 
not,  but,  if  you  had  taken  that  trouble,  you  would 
have  seen  an  account  of  the  proceedings  of  the 
courts-martial  on  the  trials  of  these  three  delin 
quent  captains,  (Vol.  I.  pp.  352,  483,)  published 
in  detail  from  Washington's  "  Orderly-Books."  Let 
me  add,  also,  that,  if  you  had  extended  your  re 
searches  to  the  Appendixl  to  the  third  volume 
of  "Washington's  Writings,"  (p.  489,)  you  might 
there  have  read  a  letter  from  the  eminent  patriot, 
Joseph  Hawley,  speaking  with  the  utmost  freedom 
of  some  of  the  officers  at  that  time,  as  being  "  very 
equivocal  in  regard  to  courage."  You  would  like 
wise  have  found  a  statement  of  Captain  Calender's 
case  (p.  490),  with  the  additional  facts,  that  he 
immediately  afterwards  joined  the  army  as  a  vol 
unteer,  and,  by  signal  acts  of  courage  on  several 
occasions,  nobly  redeemed  the  character  he  had 
lost  at  Bunker's  Hill. 

It  should  be  observed,  also,  that  examples  of 
misbehaving  officers  were  not  peculiar  to  the  New 
England  troops.  The  "Orderly-Books"  prove,  that 
they  happened  throughout  the  war  in  the  lines  of 
the  army  from  the  different  States,  as  they  doubt 
less  happen  in  all  armies  consisting  of  undisci 
plined  troops  recently  drawn  from  the  mass  of  the 
people.  They  are  comparatively  obscure  and  trivial 
incidents,  having  no  influence  upon  the  train  of 


38 


events,  and  I  could  not  deem  it  a  duty  to  encum 
ber  the  work  with  them  to  the  exclusion  of  val 
uable  materials.  Whatever  distinction  may  be 
made  between  the  three  cases  you  have  noticed 
and  others  of  the  same  class,  I  am  constrained 
to  believe  that  the  importance  you  attach  to  these 
omissions  is  exaggerated,  since  not  a  single  histor 
ical  fact  has  been  suppressed  or  disguised,  and 
that  your  imagination  has  taken  an  extraordinary 
flight  after  a  motive,  when  you  ascribe  it  to  a 
"  desire  to  deal  as  tenderly  as  possible  with  any 
thing  and  any  body  that  has  the  honor  to  be  con 
nected  with  New  England." 

You  repeat  the  charge,  before  preferred  in  your 
History,  that  I  had  somewhere  and  somehow  sup 
pressed  a  passage  containing  a  remonstrance  from 
Washington  to  Congress  for  not  fulfilling  the  Con 
vention  of  Saratoga.  You  quote  Mr.  Adolphus  as 
saying,  in  his  "  History  of  England,"  that  "  Wash 
ington  remonstrated  with  force  and  firmness 
against  this  national  act  of  dishonor " ;  and  you 
add,  "  I  found  no  such  remonstrance  as  Mr.  Adol 
phus  mentions.  Am  I,  then,  to  be  blamed  if  I 
feel,  or,  if  feeling,  I  express  my  suspicion  that 
these  words  of  remonstrance  also  may  have  been 
among  the  passages  which  you  suppress  I  "  Blame, 
my  Lord,  is  of  various  gradations,  and  how  far  it 
may  be  applied  to  you  in  this  instance  I  shall 


39 


forbear  to  decide.  I  cannot  but  express  surprise, 
however,  that  you  should  be  willing  to  venture 
such  a  charge,  or  utter  such  a  suspicion,  till  you 
had  verified  the  authority  upon  which  Mr.  Adolphus 
spoke,  especially  after  your  attention  had  been 
called  to  this  point  by  an  able  writer  in  the  North 
American  Keview.  Mr.  Adolphus  cites  the  Lon 
don  edition  of  Washington's  Official  Letters  (Vol. 
II.  p.  266).  Have  you  examined  that  reference  I 
If  so,  you  have  found  nothing  which  bears  in  the 
remotest  degree  upon  this  subject;  and,  moreover, 
if  you  search  the  two  volumes  through,  you  will 
be  equally  unsuccessful.  I  have  seen  no  evidence 
that  Washington  ever  made  such  a  remonstrance, 
and  must  deny  that  he  ever  did  so,  till  something 
in  the  shape  of  positive  proof  shall  be  produced. 

I  respect  the  memory  of  Mr.  Adolphus;  I  have 
a  grateful  recollection  of  his  personal  civilities  ;  I 
have  been  a  witness  of  his  arduous  labors  at  an 
advanced  age  in  procuring  materials  for  the  last 
and  improved  edition  of  his  History;  and  I  have 
entire  confidence  in  his  veracity ;  but  I  cannot 
yield  assent  to  his  unsupported  declaration  in  a 
case  like  this,  of  which  he  could  know  nothing 
except  from  the  testimony  of  others.  Notwith 
standing  his  assiduity  in  collecting  facts,  the  parts 
of  his  History  touching  the  American  war  abound 
in  important  errors.  Some  of  these,  relating  to 


40 


events  in  America,  were  perhaps  unavoidable;  but 
it  is  difficult  to  account  for  his  saying  of  the  pas 
sage  of  the  Stamp  Act,  that  "  no  warning  voice 
raised  itself  in  the  House  of  Commons,  but  the 
measure  was  suffered  to  pass  through  in  silence," 
when  it  is  unquestionable  that  there  were  two  or 
three  debates  on  the  subject.  Such  men  as  Barre, 
Sir  William  Meredith,  Conway,  and  Beckford, 
raised  their  voices  loudly  against  the  Act,  and 
about  fifty  members  voted  in  the  negative. 

As  you  have  selected  this  case  as  one  of  the 
"  particular  omissions,"  which,  in  your  mind,  "  tend 
to  cast  a  shade  of  distrust  over  the  entire  work," 
I  hope  you  will  allow  the  shade  to  pass  away,  till 
you  can  make  it  appear,  by  at  least  a  shadow  of 
proof,  that  there  is  an  omission. 

I  have  now  gone  through  with  the  process, 
which  I  fear  your  Lordship  will  have  found  some 
what  tedious,  of  examining  in  detail  every  case 
you  have  produced  in  vindication  of  your  various 
charges  and  suspicions.  I  have  shown,  first,  that 
in  every  instance  in  which  you  have  supposed  facts 
to  be  suppressed  or  concealed,  these  facts  are  to  be 
found  in  other  parts  of  the  work,  or  in  other 
works  long  well  known  to  the  public  ;  secondly, 
that  you  have  frequently  selected  short  sentences, 
or  fragments  of  sentences,  and  conjectured  some 


41 


special  design  for  their  omission,  when  in  reality 
they  were  included  in  a  paragraph,  or  larger  por 
tion  of  a  letter,  omitted  for  reasons  in  no  manner 
relating  to  the  purport  of  these  sentences ;  thirdly, 
that  your  main  charge  of  a  personal  motive,  prompt 
ing  me  to  protect  Washington's  dignity,  and  the 
good  name  of  the  people  of  New  England,  at  the 
expense  of  historical  justice,  is  not  sustained  by 
facts,  reasonable  inferences,  or  probability. 

On  this  last  topic  something  more  may  be  said. 
You  seem  apprehensive  that  your  own  motives 
may  be  misunderstood,  and  hence  you  endeavor  to 
guard  them  by  the  following  remarks. 

"  I  should  be  sorry  if  it  were  thought  that  I  de 
sired,  by  the  production  of  such  omitted   phrases, 
to    deny   the   unquestionable    merits    of    the   New 
England  States  in  their   Revolutionary  War.     But 
I  consider  it  requisite  to  prove  —  and  the  more  so 
since,  as  I  venture  to  think,  the  fact. is  too  often 
overlooked   on   your   side    of    the   Atlantic  —  that 
their  cause,  like   every  other   cause,  had  its   dark 
as   well   as   its   bright   side.     And   if  you,   as   the 
editor  of  Washington's  Correspondence,  are  shown 
to   leave   out    systematically   those    facts    or   those 
opinions    by  which   the  dark  side  is  to  be  proved, 
then   I,   for  my  part,   must   continue   to   maintain 
that  you,  Sir,  have,  according  to  my  former  words, 
'  tampered  with  the  truth  of  history.' " 
6 


42 


How  far  my  countrymen,  as  well  out  of  New  Eng 
land  as  in  it,  may  think  themselves  obliged  by  this 
endeavor  to  show  them  "  the  dark  as  well  as  bright 
side"  of  their  local  history,  I  am  not  prepared  to 
say.  I  should  not  be  surprised,  however,  if,  from 
the  self-esteem  in  which  they  are  sometimes  thought 
not  to  be  deficient,  they  should  imagine  themselves 
as  well  informed  on  a  subject  of  this  kind,  as  they 
could  hope  to  be  by  any  light  imparted  to  them 
from  the  other  side  of  the  Atlantic.  In  short,  I 
think  you  mistake  in  supposing,  that  any  intelli 
gent  man  in  America  is  not  as  well  acquainted  with 
the  dark  as  with  the  bright  side  of  the  Revolu 
tionary  measures  in  all  parts  of  the  country.  It 
would  be  a  waste  of  labor,  in  my  opinion,  to  at 
tempt  to  teach  them  any  new  lessons  on  these  char 
acteristics  of  their  history. 

In  the  above  extract  you  insinuate,  nay,  you  al 
most  declare,  that  I  have  "  systematically "  left  out 
facts  and  opinions,  with  the  express  design  of  per 
verting  the  testimony  of  history.  Has  this  been 
proved  by  the  examples  you  have  produced1?  On 
the  contrary,  has  it  not  been  shown  in  every  in 
stance,  that  the  facts  and  opinions  left  out  are  re 
corded  in  other  places,  and  well  known  ]  Are 
you  sure,  my  Lord,  that  you  are  perfectly  candid 
in  speaking  thus?  Why  use  this  equivocal  lan 
guage1?  Why  say  that,  "if"  I  have  "  systemati- 


cally"  done  so,  then  I  have  "tampered  with  the 
truth  of  history"?  It  may  be  that  you  and  I  do 
not  attach  the  same  meaning  to  this  sentence. 
To  tamper  with  truth  of  any  kind  is,  in  my  appre 
hension,  a  highly  criminal  act.  It  implies  a  de 
fect,  not  of  judgment,  but  of  principle.  It  cannot 
appear  strange,  therefore,  that,  viewing  it  in  this 
light,  I  should  consider  such  a  charge  as  an  as 
sumption  little  consistent  with  your  Lordship's 
character. 

You  have  published  an  edition  of  "  Chesterfield's 
Letters,"  in  which,  doubtless  for  good  reasons,  you 
have  left  out  letters  comprised  in  other  editions. 
Suppose  some  critic  should  examine  these  omitted 
letters,  select  from  them  sentences,  or  parts  of  sen 
tences,  containing  pointed  expressions  or  facts 
which  he  may  deem  important,  and  then  charge 
you  with  personal  motives  in  such  omissions,  and 
tampering  with  truth.  "Would  you  regard  this  as 
a  fair  or  liberal  construction  of  your  motives  ]  I 
presume  not.  Yet  a  case  like  this  would  be  par 
allel  to  those  of  several  of  the  examples  you  have 
brought  forward  as  proofs  of  such  a  charge. 

You  speak  of  "  embellishments,"  and  seem  stren 
uous  to  maintain,  that  I  have  sought  to  embellish 
Washington's  letters  by  omissions.  The  sense  in 
which  you  would  have  this  word  understood  is  not 
very  clear.  To  embellish  means  to  adorn.  Your 


44 

first  charge  of  additions  might  give  countenance 
to  the  idea  of  embellishments,  but  you  have  with 
drawn  that  charge,  and  how  omissions  are  to  be 
made  ornamental  you  have  not  explained.  As 
this  is  merely  an  opinion,  however,  a  peculiar  fan 
cy  of  your  own  not  touching  facts,  I  am  willing 
you  should  continue  to  entertain  the  opinion  upon 
such  grounds  as  are  satisfactory  to  yourself. 

It  must  seem  strange  to  most  readers,  that  your 
Lordship,  in  a  distant  country,  should  be  the  first 
to  discover  the  partiality,  which  you  allege  to  have 
been  shown  to  the  people  of  New  England  in  the 
preparation  for  the  press  of  a  selection  from  Wash 
ington's  papers.  Fifteen  years  have  elapsed  since 
the  publication  of  that  work,  and  yet  no  American 
writer  in  any  part  of  the  Union,  however  much  his 
perceptions  may  have  been  quickened  by  local  at 
tachments  and  predilections,  however  sensitive  to 
the  merits  of  his  own  State  or  district  in  the  war 
of  the  Revolution,  has  made  known  such  a  discov 
ery,  or  intimated  such  a  suspicion.  How  do  you 
account  for  what  you  assume  to  be  a  fact,  that  you 
are  so  much  better  informed  on  this  subject,  than 
writers  in  America,  who  have  every  inducement, 
from  personal  feeling,  and  from  political  as  well  as 
social  sympathies,  to  examine  it  in  all  its  relations  ] 
The  simple  truth  is,  that  the  discovery  itself  is  a 
dream  of  fancy,  and  the  more  thoroughly  it  is  in- 


45 


vestigated,  the  more  completely  it  will  be  proved 
to  be  such. 

You  appear  to  have  been  beguiled  into  miscon 
ceptions  by  not  attending  with  sufficient  care  to 
local  causes  and  circumstances,  and  to  the  actual 
state  of  things  throughout  the  country.  It  hap 
pened  that  the  war  of  the  Eevolution  began  in  New 
England,  unexpectedly  at  the  time  and  without 
preparation  on  the  part  of  the  inhabitants.  Soon 
after  the  affair  at  Lexington,  an  army  was  drawn 
together  at  Cambridge,  which,  at  the  time  Washing 
ton  took  the  command,  amounted  to  about  sixteen 
thousand  men,  two  thirds  of  whom  were  from  Massa 
chusetts.  How  was  this  army  constituted  I  Mostly 
of  men  who  had  suddenly  left  their  ploughs  at 
the  call  of  their  country,  and  in  the  expectation 
of  a  brief  term  of  service.  Among  the  native  in 
habitants  there  was  scarcely  a  soldier  by  profession 
in  all  the  Colonies.  With  very  few  exceptions,  the 
men  destined  to  fill  the  ranks  of  the  army  were 
practical  farmers  or  mechanics.  The  officers  were 
nearly  all  from  the  same  classes. 

With  these  materials  an  army  was  to  be  formed 
and  organized,  consisting  of  independent  yeomanry, 
volunteers,  mostly  without  military  experience  or 
discipline;  and,  when  their  short  term  of  service 
had  expired,  a  new  army  was  to  be  raised  from 
similar  materials,  and  placed  under  new  officers  and 


46 


new  arrangements.  All  this  was  to  be  done,  while 
the  whole  force  of  the  enemy  was  stationed  within 
three  miles  of  Washington's  head-quarters,  and  sup 
ported  by  a  strong  naval  armament  in  the  harbor 
of  Boston. 

The  embarrassments  and  difficulties  of  such  an 
undertaking  may  easily  be  conceived,  especially  as 
the  civil  authority,  not  yet  consolidated,  was  very 
feeble,  and  the  military  power  was  not  recognized 
beyond  the  camp.  No  wonder  that  the  Commander- 
in-chief,  pressed  on  all  sides  by  the  most  harassing 
vexations,  should  occasionally  show  impatience,  and 
utter  loud  complaints.  The  wonder  is,  that  he 
bore  himself  under  them  with  so  much  fortitude 
and  self-command.  You  are  inclined  to  attribute 
these  vexations  to  the  peculiar  character  of  the 
people,  their  want  of  patriotism,  and  their  absorb 
ing  self-interest.  But  the  truth  is,  they  existed  in 
the  very  nature  of  things,  in  the  state  of  society 
and  the  structure  of  the  human  mind,  precisely 
as  they  would  exist  in  any  country  placed  under 
the  like  circumstances. 

If  the  war  had  begun  in  any  other  part  of  the 
Union,  similar  results  must  have  followed.  This 
is  so  obvious  to  those,  who  have  had  opportunities 
of  forming  a  correct  judgment  from  a  knowledge 
of  all  the  facts,  that  no  one  in  America  has  ever 
drawn  comparisons  unfavorable  to  the  exertions  of 


47 


New  England  during  that  period;  nor  has  it  been 
intimated  that  the  New  England  States  did  not 
contribute,  with  alacrity  and  promptness,  their  full 
proportion  of  men  and  means  in  support  of  the 
contest  throughout  the  war. 

But  it  is  not  my  purpose  to  vindicate  a  people, 
who  need  no  vindication.  Nor  should  I  have 
touched  upon  the  subject,  if  you  had  not  made 
their  supposed  want  of  public  virtue  and  high 
character  in  some  measure  the  groundwork  of  your 
charges  against  my  editorial  fidelity.  I  am  con 
vinced,  that  your  premises  and  conclusions  are 
alike  erroneous  and  unjust.  I  am  convinced,  that 
no  incidents  in  the  history  of  the  period  in  ques 
tion  have  been  recorded,  which  any  intelligent  man 
in  New  England  would  desire  to  have  concealed; 
and  I  can  affirm,  that  the  idea  of  such  conceal 
ment  never  entered  my  thoughts,  till  it  was  sug 
gested  by  your  suspicions  and  charges. 

I  have  thus  examined  all  the  parts  of  your  letter 
which  relate  to  my  edition  of  "  Washington's  Writ 
ings."  The  plan  upon  which  the  work  was  execut 
ed,  and  the  principles  adopted  in  carrying  out  the 
plan,  are  so  fully  explained  in  my  Reply  to  your 
former  strictures,  and  in  the  work  itself,  that  no 
further  remarks  on  those  topics  are  required. 

In    making   a   selection   from  the  large  mass  of 


48 


papers  left  by  "Washington,  extending  over  a  long 
period,  and  extremely  various  in  their  character,  an 
editor  could  not  expect  to  escape  from  occasional 
errors  of  judgment  and  opinion.  Such  errors  are 
fair  subjects  of  criticism ;  but  when  you  assail  mo 
tives,  and  thus  call  in  question  the  editor's  fidelity 
and  rectitude,  you  give  a  wide  range  to  a  critic's 
privilege.  I  trust  my  sensibility  to  what  I  esteem 
your  unfounded  animadversions  has  not  betrayed 
me  beyond  the  proper  line  of  courtesy,  nor  dimin- 
\ished  the  respect  which  I  have  been  accustomed  to 
entertain  for  you  as  an  author  and  a  man ;  and 

which 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  my  Lord, 

Your  Lordship's  most  obedient  servant, 
JARED    SPARKS. 

CAMBRIDGE,  October  25th,  1852. 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 
LOAN  DEPT. 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 

on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 
Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 


LIBRARY  USE  QCT  7 


LD  21A-50m-9.'58 
(G889slO)47CB 


General  Library 

University  of  Californh 

Berkeley 


